David Adanja

The defendant pleaded guilty to common assault after initially facing a robbery charge.

The assault occurred when the defendant, as part of a group, physically searched a 17-year-old victim on a public street, including forcibly pulling down the victim's pants.

The defendant was bound by two probation orders at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge, citing potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding that while immigration consequences were relevant, they were minor and did not warrant a discharge given the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's prior record, and the need for denunciation and specific deterrence.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a complainant in a human trafficking case to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom, and to have a Human Trafficking Advocate sit close to her during testimony.

The accused opposed both aspects of the application.

The court granted the CCTV order but denied the request for the advocate's close presence.

The decision addresses the evidentiary threshold under the amended Section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which changed from a "necessity" test to a "facilitate" test, and considers what evidence is required to support such applications.

The Crown brought an application under R. v. Khelawon to admit the videotaped police statement and preliminary inquiry evidence of a complainant who was reluctant to testify at trial.

The court found that while the evidence met the threshold for reliability, the Crown failed to establish necessity.

The court concluded that the police had not made reasonable or diligent efforts to locate the complainant, serve her with a subpoena, or secure her attendance at trial.

Consequently, the application to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed, and the court declined to issue a material witness warrant.

During a criminal prosecution for sexual assault, the accused applied for an order requiring a Yoruba interpreter for pre‑trial proceedings and trial.

The court considered the scope of the right to interpreter assistance under s. 14 of the Charter and the evidentiary burden required to establish that an accused does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.

Evidence showed the accused had been educated in English, communicated with officials and police in English, and previously participated in legal and immigration proceedings without an interpreter.

The court concluded the accused failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that interpreter assistance was necessary.

The application was dismissed.

A young person charged with 11 criminal offences related to possession of a loaded prohibited semi-automatic handgun and crack cocaine found in a bedroom shared with his 20-year-old brother.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that the items were found in the accused's bedroom.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of and control over the items.

The court found that while highly suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the items, particularly given that the bedroom was shared with his brother and others had frequent access.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.